[LINK] is this legal to access in Australia?

[rene]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:51:12 +1100, Jan Whitaker wrote:

> After the new blacklist comes into force, will articles like this
> freely published in Wired magazine be banned? and how exactly would
> they do this?
>
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/decaf-cofee/

I agree with Philip's suggestion:  "No; not applicable". Detailed 
explanation follows for anyone really interested in what the 
classification/censorship legislation, etc, says.

Conroy and most of the mainstream media keep saying that "RC" includes 
"detailed instruction in crime". In actual fact, existing legislation 
enables the Classification Board to Refuse Classification to any material 
which they consider "promote[s], incite[s] or instruct[s] in matters of 
crime or violence." (Ssource: Section 3(1)(c) - Films, National 
Classification Code, Cth Classification Act). It doesn't limit what can be 
RC to "detailed instruction".

It is that sub-section that has been used to ban things such as:
* The Peaceful Pill Handbook by Dr Phillip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart 
because, according to the Classification Review Board, 'it instructs in the 
crime of the manufacture of barbiturates'; 
* Marc Ecko's Computer Game: Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure because a 
majority of a sub-set of the Classification Review Board considered it 
'provided elements of promotion of the crime of graffiti';
*An edition of the newspaper Rabelais, published by the Students 
Representative Council of La Trobe University (Melbourne), because it 
contained an (arguably political and satirical) article titled "The Art of 
Shoplifting" (allegedly instructing in a crime).
* etc, etc.

For the subject Wired article to be "Refused Classification", the 
Classification Board or Review Board would have to find that it  
"promote[s], incite[s] or instruct[s] in matters of crime" and I very, 
very, much doubt there is any Cth or State/Territory law which would make 
installing the subject software on one's own computer "a crime". 

Even *if* the Classification Board was asked to classify the page, and made 
it "RC" (banned), the means of "banning it" (if/when the mandatory 'filter' 
comes into force) will be to require ISPs to (attempt to) block access to 
the page. All blocking/filtering/censorware products tested/trialled by the 
current and former governments can be readily circumvented/bypassed by 
anyone, including children, sufficiently motivated to do a Google/etc  
search to find one or more of the many methods of doing so (or just ask a 
schoolmate or someone else how to - There have long been numerous reports 
of school kids bypassing school implemented filtering systems, and there is 
no 'magic'/nothing different about what ISPs can implement).

Also, it is not illegal/a crime to access/possess material that has been 
Refused Classification for private/personal purposes (other than the 
sub-set of RC that is 'cp' material) except in WA and parts of the NT. (It 
is not an accident that RC material (other than the mentioned sub-set) is 
legal to possess in the vast majority of States/Territories. That situation 
exists as a result of intentional decisions made by Commonwealth, State and 
Territory Governments to accept the Australian Law Reform Commission's 
recommendations in that regard when enacting legislation in 1995/1996 to 
implement the national co-operative classification scheme which currently 
still exists. More detail in that regard can be found here:
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html#rcpossess ).

To date the Labor Government has not stated any intention to make it a 
crime to circumvent their proposed mandatory 'filtering'.

NB: Regardless that the system will be able to be easily circumvented, 
Labor's plan should be opposed because it is very likely to provide a false 
sense of security to some parents thereby placing some kids at more risk 
than they are now (and mandatory blocking of only 'RC' is even less 
protective than Labor's stated 2007 election commitment to require ISPs to 
*offer* blocking of 'prohibited content' (to "prevent Australian children 
from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by 
ACMA"), a significantly wider range of types of content than only 'RC'; and 
secret (blacklist) censorship is incompatible with democracy, etc.

Irene